4 ms·

I love Go. But from a game-theoretic view it is theoretically rather trivial, as are chess, checkers, and any other game in which players with perfect informati

I love Go. But from a game-theoretic view it is theoretically rather trivial, as are chess, checkers, and any other game in which players with perfect information alternate moves. The winner of a Go game is whoever more reliably predicts the ultimate result of various potential intermediate positions. The only interesting game theoretic aspects at all arise to the extent one can predict one's opponents' likely errors, or that one "knows what one doesn't know" in terms of one's own calculating ability.

fsk 12y ago
Actually, go has some deep complexity that chess and checkers do not have, primarily from the idea of "ko". Read "Mathematical Go". https://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/cgt/gobook.html https://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/cgt/gobook.html
- jknightco 12y ago
  His point wasn't concerning the complexity, but rather the fact that both players have perfect information about the state of the game.
- neilh23 12y ago
  Interestingly, that book has a review quote by Ken Thompson. I always wondered if the naming of Go(lang) was related to the game ...
lambda 12y ago
Actually, it's interesting in the sense of combinatorial game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory) not the branch of decision theory for interactive rational agents known as game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory). Two only very distantly related subjects which unfortunately have confusingly similar names.
- Chichikov 12y ago
  Sorry, did you mean to write "rational rational agents"? If so, why repeat "rational"?
  - lambda 12y ago
    Nope, it was a typo; I edited my phrasing a couple of times, and the last edit left two copies of the word. Fixed, thanks.
- CurtMonash 12y ago
  Got it. That said, I use "game theory" in the sense in which it's defined, not least because my thesis was in the subject. :)
  - lambda 12y ago
    Yes, that is the meaning of plain old "game theory", and I also think that's the meaning that the person you were replying to meant; I just wanted to point out that there is something with "game theory" in its name which is much more applicable to Go.

fsk 12y ago

Actually, go has some deep complexity that chess and checkers do not have, primarily from the idea of "ko". Read "Mathematical Go". https://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/cgt/gobook.html https://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/cgt/gobook.html

jknightco 12y ago
His point wasn't concerning the complexity, but rather the fact that both players have perfect information about the state of the game.
neilh23 12y ago
Interestingly, that book has a review quote by Ken Thompson. I always wondered if the naming of Go(lang) was related to the game ...

lambda 12y ago

Actually, it's interesting in the sense of combinatorial game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory) not the branch of decision theory for interactive rational agents known as game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory). Two only very distantly related subjects which unfortunately have confusingly similar names.

Chichikov 12y ago
Sorry, did you mean to write "rational rational agents"? If so, why repeat "rational"?
- lambda 12y ago
  Nope, it was a typo; I edited my phrasing a couple of times, and the last edit left two copies of the word. Fixed, thanks.
CurtMonash 12y ago
Got it. That said, I use "game theory" in the sense in which it's defined, not least because my thesis was in the subject. :)
- lambda 12y ago
  Yes, that is the meaning of plain old "game theory", and I also think that's the meaning that the person you were replying to meant; I just wanted to point out that there is something with "game theory" in its name which is much more applicable to Go.